Gentlemen,A young soldier hacked to death in public in Woolwich, two young policewomen lured into a trap and shot down in cold blood, this, amongst other atrocities where there is no question or doubt about the perpetrators. Should these people not share the same fate as those whose lives they so callously took and be given a death sentence?

Paul, i do not know where you live on this rock of ours, but the death penalty DOES still apply in the UK for certain crimes against the state.When 1 of these individuals involved in the Woolwich death was spouting off, it has been suggested his words, which were recorded, amount to treason.Treason is amongst those few crimes for which the death penalty DOES still apply.Murder and manslaughter. No. Except for the murder of a member of the British Royal Family.But then, we will not be permitted to forget their Human rights.

culverin wrote:Paul, i do not know where you live on this rock of ours, but the death penalty DOES still apply in the UK for certain crimes against the state.When 1 of these individuals involved in the Woolwich death was spouting off, it has been suggested his words, which were recorded, amount to treason.Treason is amongst those few crimes for which the death penalty DOES still apply.Murder and manslaughter. No. Except for the murder of a member of the British Royal Family.But then, we will not be permitted to forget their Human rights.

I'm afraid that too has gone, the death penalty for murder of a member of the Royal family was counted as treason, unfortunately this and the only otherreason, for piracy was abolished around 20000, I believe the last person to have been hanged was around 1960-62, a pity, there have been a great many more since then who should have gone that way.

The death penalty simply does not work. Those two morons who murdered that soldier in Woolwich, were asking to become martyrs. That is why they did not flee the scene. The armed response unit wisely fired shots into limbs, so they could be taken and put on trial. Had they shot to kill, the two miscreants would have got what they wanted.

During the troubles in Northern Ireland and without making judgements, there were hunger strikes which without force feeding, would have resulted in deaths. This what the prisoners wanted. In their anger and misguided mental state they wanted to become martyrs. The best policy is to rob them of the opportunity to become martyrs, then after a fair trial - with a jury - give them time to think about what they have done and possibly come to regret. I stress fair trial, because many prisoners in Northern Ireland in the 1980s had been put there on the decisions of a judge at "Diplock Courts" with no jury. The prisoners considered themselves to be political prisoners and victims of injustice. Many proved to have been wrongly imprisoned in later and more enlightened years.

I have personally met and talked with a number of murderers from the 1960s and' 70s, one a multiple murderer. They had all committed hideous crimes and in conversation I could tell they were not the firebrands, or unthinking maniacs they once were. They were changed men, humbled by their experience of being behind bars, for more than forty years in some cases. I was able to talk to them alone, because they were extremely ill and could barely move. They were much wiser than they had been and were all well aware of it and yes, they all regretted what they had done. This was not the regret of men thinking to smooze their way past a parole board, because I had no authority and no means of passing my observations on and they would not have been able to enjoy more than a few months outside. They were just talking about the past and the common theme seemed to be "What an idiot I was when I was young." They were also thinking about their victims and their victims families.

I have also met a number of murderers at the beginning of their sentences. They did not recognise what they had done and all believe they had been given a raw deal, and expressed no thought for their victims, it was all about them and their needs. This type are often full of rage and quite a few are ready to commit suicide to prove their point. They are all deranged. Let us see how 30 or forty years behind bars changes them.

If we were to hang them, the focus would be upon them and worst of all worlds, some would see them as victims and try to comfort them, campaign for them. There are far more nutcases on the outside than inside. Murderers are similar to mad dogs. Mad dogs should be shot, but humans who kill their own kind have the capacity to learn regret and that over a long period of time is a far worse punishment than a few hours of intense fear, which finishes at the end of a rope. Most went to the hangman in a calm state, very few fainted or kicked up a fuss. It was all a bit of an anti-climax.

Long years of learning to regret and then years more spent in the realisation they had wasted the lives of others and their own lives is retribution like no other form.

As regards the cost of keeping murderers alive, at current rates it costs about twice as much to execute a murderer in the USA as it does to keep them fed and secure for the rest of their lives. It might be argued that it is done cheaper in other countries, but I think we still need due process before we go for the drop. Those nations which convict and go quickly to execution are over time, coming to realise that many injustices are done when justice is hurried. Once someone is hanged they cannot be brought back. If they are wrongly imprisoned they can be released and at least, financially compensated for their lost time and the ruin of their lives. There have been a great number of such releases in the UK in recent years.

When we read of gangsters, pedophiles, or terrorists who commit murder, the gut reaction is to want them dead. Far better to keep them under lock and key and with no chance of parole. Once a person has crossed that threshold, society cannot be sure they will not offend again. Let them serve a term for punishment, then keep them securely held for the rest of their lives. There is no way that atonement can ever balance the books, or guarantee public safety.

Finally, murderers who were hanged are remembered long after their victims have been forgotten by society. In a twisted way they seem to have achieved an immortality comparable to great historical figures. An immortality in their notoriety which their victims could never have. The names of Neville Heath, John Christy, James Hanratty and the much lamented Ruth Ellis, may be remembered, but who did they kill? In the USA we may know of Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, but again, who were their victims? Instead of executing them it would have been far better to let them fall into well deserved obscurity and serve out their lives behind bars.

In more enlightened times, Ruth Ellis may have been considered to have been driven to a Crime of Passion. Not after they hanged her though. It was her execution which caused the futility of the death penalty to penetrated the minds of the nation and eventually bring it to and end. The Death Penalty never stopped a single murder.

culverin wrote:Paul, i do not know where you live on this rock of ours, but the death penalty DOES still apply in the UK for certain crimes against the state.

Treason is amongst those few crimes for which the death penalty DOES still apply.Murder and manslaughter. No. Except for the murder of a member of the British Royal Family.

The death penalty no longer applies in the UK. It was finally abolished by the Tony Blair government around 1998, not least becuase the European Union forbids its member states from having the death penalty.

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,A young soldier hacked to death in public in Woolwich, two young policewomen lured into a trap and shot down in cold blood, this, amongst other atrocities where there is no question or doubt about the perpetrators. Should these people not share the same fate as those whose lives they so callously took and be given a death sentence?

Vic Dale wrote:The death penalty simply does not work. Those two morons who murdered that soldier in Woolwich, were asking to become martyrs. That is why they did not flee the scene. The armed response unit wisely fired shots into limbs, so they could be taken and put on trial. Had they shot to kill, the two miscreants would have got what they wanted.

The problem with this line of argument is the faulty reasoning. Britain doesn't have the death penalty, we have political correctness instead. They know that, so their actions have no cost to them - their motive is to gain publicity for their cause rather than personal martyrdom. Imprisonment where they are kept at the taxpayers expense is a cushy number compared with the grisly fate of true martyrs like Sir Thomas More or Lady Jane Grey.

I hear that the disreputable European Court of Human Rights is now apparently saying that locking up someome for 'life' (and meaning just that) is infringing their 'Human Rights' unless they are give a chance to apply for parole, so if we are unable to lock these killers up and throw away the key then we should just execute tham and save ourselves a lot of money.

I totally agree. No matter if somebody argues for or against death penalty, I'm convinced that this statement is absolutely indisputable.

Well the murderer that gets executed won't be repeating the crime, whereas the killer who does his/her time and is released or escapes from imprisonment can kill again.

Execution of murderers has over time prevented further killings.

Excuse me ???

With this line of argument, every person, no matter if he/she has killed before, is a potential killer and should be executed. Or are you implying, that all murderers are born as such and can nothing else but kill ?

I agree with RF.All I am saying that in the case of premeditated murder such as perpetrated by Dr Shipman, Dale Cregan and others where there is no question whatever of their guilt I do not see why they should be allowed to live (and cost a small fortune to keep) when they had no respect for the lives of their victims.Particularly in the light of the latest ridiculous ruling by the European Court of Human Rights who apparently say that a Judge cannot rule that life imprisonment will mean just that. I know it is highly unlikely the death penalty will ever return, but it would be interesting to see a public referendum on case such as I have described - I think it would surprise our politicions!

The two morons who beheaded the squaddie in Woolwich were hoping the armed response team would shoot them dead, That is why they did not flee the scene and then attacked the armed response officers. They did not get their wish and will now serve the rest of their lives, hopefully, if the damned European Court does not get in the way.

As for that pronouncement by the European Court of Human Rights, the arguments are totally flawed. Those who kill deserve to serve the full sentence - life. I heard it said that the full life term prevents the prisoner demonstrating good behaviour to gain parole. I don't think that any form of good behaviour demonstrates that a murdering pedophile is right for parole - ever. That type often get religion and try to shmooze their way out of the system and it seems that the idiots on the parole boards fall for it every time. When someone gets killed by a repeat offender "Lessons" are learned. It is high time these wet behind the ears meddlers were cut out of the prison system. Demonstrating remorse and faith in some deity is no substitute for serving one's time and gaining privileges like TV, free association, or pool by good behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't do the crime.

The courts are a sham. A judge passes a life sentence and everyone knows it is not a life sentence.

I tend to think that the life sentence is so terrible that people shy away from it, but having those people locked away until they are dead, is one hell of a way to show people the consequences of their actions. The victims families will feel a lot better. Executing them would end their problems but their families would be the ones who suffer.

Youngsters who enter the prison system, it is said, usually learn their trade as criminals whilst inside. Mixing with lifers who have no hope of getting out might induce some of these youngsters to try a different tack when they get out. That is another use value of the lifer.

It has been suggested that prisoners should be made to work at some useful task and with this I agree, providing that sufficient money is put into the scheme and that the working day is no longer or more arduous than the average worked outside. The task should be a rewarding experience too, teaching them a trade, not sewing mailbags, or breaking rocks. All profit should go directly to victim support, not into government coffers. All fines should go the same way too. Then those who offend at any level will have the satisfaction of knowing that their fine or the product of their labour goes to a good cause.

I often have to sit suicide watch on murderers who have tried to take the easy way out. It is imperative to deny them the opportunity to end it all. The death penalty would actually serve their purpose perfectly. Among those who take life, or tool up to take life are a number of people who have an unhealthy obsession with death and very possibly execution would serve some warped purpose.

On basic money alone, it costs twice as much to execute as to keep the miscreant behind bars. During interviews a good deal is learned about common behaviour and attitudes among those who kill. So even these people can still be useful to society alive. I believe Jeffrey Dahmer was instrumental in helping police catch a serial killer. Dahmer was eventually executed, but what a waste.

Thanks for your very reasoned reply Vic, it certainly gives one food for thought altough I'm afraid it does'nt alter my opinion and I suspect opinions of the many thousands of people who attended the young soldiers funeral today.But thanks again for putting your points forward.